Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

a reply to: Phage

Now explain the reduction of 14C levels.

I'm not quite sure what your asking...

More volcanic activity ?

Less cosmic rays ?

Neverending wars and uranium enriched weapons blasting everyone to Timbuktu ?

Who knows.


Again, there is still no definitive signature of fossil fuel burning, specifically.

Many many factors come into play throughout the timescales.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Explain the C14 levels, like you explained the C13/C12 levels, more or less.

The signature and simple cause and effect of the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is a real and there is a plethora of data to back this up.

a reply to: jrod

Like I said, there are natural factors at play that can change the C14 ratio, not just fossil fuel burning.

Changes in solar activity.
Changes in our magnetosphere.
Changes in volcanic activity.


The list goes on and on.

You guys are attempting to show that CO2 isotopic signatures are clear and definitive proof that they are attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

When, in fact, it is not clear and definitive of anything other than preconceived notions.

a reply to: CranialSponge

You are ignoring the rising CO2 levels when you post that garbage. You had no problem breaking down the C12/C13 levels. the C12/C14 ration is the one that is a bit of a smoking gun in terms of evidence of the human impact on the atmosphere.

We are at 405ppm. All you have done is parrot the climate deniers talking points without adding evidence to support your claim.

The discussion is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. There are only icebergs on radar, not through the hull. No one will certify the radar is calibrated and correct.

The real discussion that we should be having:

Man needs to PREPARE for whatever climate change might or might not happen in the future. Never mind thinking what causes it. That most likely has nothing to do with mans activity. Man needs to SECURE SOURCES OF ENERGY for either cooling or heating where we live, work, grow food, and all human activities directly and indirectly.

This discussion needs to be about an energy grid and building power sources many times past what is needed today and projected 100 years into the future.

ENERGY TO HEAT OR COOL. Man must adapt TO the climate.

a reply to: tkwasny

The reason for the argument is that we have a window, well a now closing window to decrease the impact of our ignorance... yes, prepare but let's lessen the thing we're preparing for.

a reply to: jrod

CO2 seems to play a dung role, since the planet does not get much warmer. So, I will happily return to fire up my BBQ, however, first need to burn a truckload of gas to pick up the beef - from some non-mutilated methane producing longhorns - and with the new logic of green sustainable BBQ-ing, the loss of methane thus produced, will more than generously compensate my truck's and BBQ's CO2 production. Everyone can die with happy thoughts...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22
"Should be going?" That doesn't mean much but since solar irradiance (the primary driver of climate) has been stable (or slightly declining) global temperatures should be be stable (or slightly declining). With that in mind, in lieu of other observed radiative forcing factors than CO2 levels, it is appropriate that temperatures are rising.

If you can answer those questions with data and sound reasoning, then I'll listen to what you have to say.

That's nice. The data is readily available.
lasp.colorado.edu...
www.climate.unibe.ch...

IMO the global warming initiative is a diversion from something else. Just to let you know where I stand.

I see.

Yeah "Should be going" as in rising or declining. Seems you understood exactly what I mean so there should be no issue.

There's something wrong with your sentence structure here and I cannot understand "exactly" what you mean.

" .....in lieu of other observed radiative forcing factors than CO2 levels, it is appropriate that temperatures are rising."

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: tkwasny

The reason for the argument is that we have a window, well a now closing window to decrease the impact of our ignorance... yes, prepare but let's lessen the thing we're preparing for.

So "we have a window"? Is this the new mantra? Global warming, then climate change and someone else just told me of a new one, climate disruption. Seems that's what Phage was suggesting in his response to me. "The climate should be warming but something is disrupting it. Must be man made." Maybe the chemtrails are working.

Do you climate change people coordinate via Skype or are these talking points emailed?

a reply to: 727Sky

My friend:

an article about fiddled numbers which over the years has been widely reported.

Not widely reported, widely regurgitated. That isn't the same thing. The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal (Op-eds all, generally)... Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton, The Heartland Institute, The Global Warming Policy Foundation and the entire blogosphere the above mentioned are circulated through... are lying to you. Continuously. Most of the time without new material by the way.

It is so bad now that anyone who denies climate change (changes all the time with warming and cooling treads if anyone looks at the history but seems to want to be ignored this time around) is considered right along with some terrorist outfit

No. That is another regurgitated myth. It's the opposite that is true. Look up the rate of murder of environmental activists. Also consider that local governments are banning the words climate change, suppressing science and scientists all over the West, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia. Classic example of the persecutors claiming victimization.

I just read both sides of an argument

There truly is not two sides of this argument. There's science and then there's lies and obfuscation. Learn the science and no one will have the power to lie to you about it ever again.

a reply to: Bilk22

Word salad.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Bilk22

Word salad.

Hey we agree on something

a reply to: Kali74

Hey Kali74 glad to see you are still around ! hahaha I actually thought of you when I was posting this article... wondering if you would pop in ! Glad you did.. and thanks for your replies which I always star even if you piss me off with your answers sometimes ! hahahah

a reply to: Bilk22

Don't tell anyone but our skype room is called Climate Justice League.

/yawn

a reply to: 727Sky

a reply to: Phage

I am saying that change will not happen until the 2 gross polluting countries come onboard the climate change train. I am all for a healthy planet.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Except that the isotopic C13/C12 ratio can change, not just by the decrease of C13, but also by the increase of C12. And since there is no way to know which is the predominent factor, there is no way to know how much is human caused and how much is nature caused.

And why is there no way to determine which is the predominent factor ?

Because inter-annual natural variability of C13/C12 is exactly the same as the trends are.

Therefore, we have no bloody clue how much of the signature is human and how much is nature.

It's nothing but speculation at best.

Let's show others who may not be aware just how this ratio is changing:

Volcanic versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide: An Addendum

Just this week, data was released saying that the largest effusive volcanic eruption since 1783, the Holuhraun lava field in Iceland, emitted 6.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide — that sounds like a lot until you realize its only ~1% of the total emissions of the US passenger car fleet.
...
There is really no way around it. Since the dawn of the industrial age, humans have taken carbon locked in organic material and released it into the atmosphere. That burning added huge volumes of carbon dioxide (in 2014, 44 billion tonnes) that all has highly negative carbon isotopic composition. Carbon dioxide goes up, the carbon isotopic composition goes down, all recoded in the ice at the poles.

The article itself is pretty neat and goes into a lot more detail, so give it a read!

Satellite information says that for the last 16 years, the earth's mean temperature has not budged, considering the 'not very warm' summers that Europe has had to contend with for the last few years, and North America's shocking winters, all continental states COLD last winter, "Oh there just blips" really? 3 years in a row?
Both poles with above 'average' sea ice? year on year? I'm preparing for a cold future, if its warm instead, great!
I can tell when government funded scientists are being economical with the truth, their lips move.

a reply to: pikestaff

Satellite information says that for the last 16 years, the earth's mean temperature has not budged

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like satellite data indicates that it has gone up about 0.4º since 2000. That seems like a significant "budge." A "budge" that would result in an increase of more than 2º by the end of the century, if it continues at that rate.

www.drroyspencer.com...

North America's shocking winters, all continental states COLD last winter, "Oh there just blips" really? 3 years in a row?

All continental states cold last winter? Are you sure? Yes, part of North America was cold. So were a couple of other places. So what?

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Both poles with above 'average' sea ice? year on year?

Are you sure about that?

Arctic sea ice extent for March 2015 averaged 14.39 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles). This is the lowest March ice extent in the satellite record. It is 1.13 million square kilometers (436,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.52 million square kilometers (6.00 million square miles). It is also 60,000 square kilometers (23,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month observed in 2006.

Air temperatures reached record high levels at two Antarctic stations last week, setting a new mark for the warmest conditions ever measured anywhere on the continent. On March 23, at Argentina’s base Marambio, a temperature of 17.4° Celsius (63.3° Fahrenheit) was reached, surpassing a previous record set in 1961 at a nearby base, Esperanza. The old record was 17.1° Celsius (62.8° Fahrenheit). However, Esperanza quickly reclaimed the record a few hours later on March 24, reaching a temperature of 17.5° Celsius (63.5° Fahrenheit).

nsidc.org...

While it is true that sea ice extent in the Antarctic has increased, it is also true that land ice is dramatically decreasing. That is problematic.

a reply to: CranialSponge

I'm not quite sure what your asking...

I'm asking how you account for the decline in the ratio of 14C to 12C.

More volcanic activity ?

Any evidence for that? But I thought you said that the increase in CO2 was due to plants. How does volcanic activity account for the change in 12C/13C?

Less cosmic rays ?

Any evidence for that?

Neverending wars and uranium enriched weapons blasting everyone to Timbuktu ?

Wouldn't that increase the amount of 14C?

Who knows.

We know. It is because fossil fuels (plant material) are depleted of 14C because they are millions of years old. When fossil fuels are burned they do not release 14C because they do not contain 14C. When modern plants decay they release 14C because they contain 14C. When modern plants decay they do not change the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere because they are release the same 14C they absorbed from the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned they decrease the ratio of 14C to 13C because they are releasing mostly 12C, no 14C. This has been known since before warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) became an issue.
uscentrist.org...
The rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels.